Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We concur in the board’s findings of misconduct. In addition, the board increased the sanction recommended by the panel because of “the calculated, deliberate manner in which Respondent conducted and concealed his fraudulent schemes, his gross abuse of a position of trust and responsibility for personal gain, the amount of the theft, the length of time over which the thefts occurred and a concern that Respondent’s testimony, offered in mitigation and justification of the thefts, instead demonstrated a fundamental lack of appreciation for lawyers’ ethical obligations to the profession and the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Disciplinary Counsel v. KraemerOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. YajkoOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Akron Bar Assn. v. SmithernOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Toledo Bar Ass'n v. CrossmockOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. SchwietermanOhio Supreme Court · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.